Transport Committee on Oct. 28th, 2010

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you.

It was a pleasure to head down to Windsor for that announcement. I had an e-mail exchange with the chairman of the Windsor port just to ask him how it was going. There was a little delay of a week or two at the start, but he says it's going wonderfully and that it's going to reinvigorate that port. You know, it's a smaller but integral part of that whole region, so I'm really looking forward to the impact. That's another case in which a certain amount of federal money levered both private sector and local money. It has just been a good example, really, of what's necessary.

On the Detroit River international crossing project, when I was down in Windsor I made mention that there is no bigger and no more important infrastructure project, as far as the Government of Canada is concerned, than this crossing. That's how important it is. It's not just important for Windsor, of course. As I've been learning, 50% of the goods moved out of Quebec by truck go across that crossing. This is a huge continental gateway issue. We all saw what happened when that bridge was shut down on 9/11. An eye-popping 8,000 trucks a day go across there. That bridge and expanding the capacity in that area is critically important.

I met with the American ambassador. I reiterated the importance of it to the Canadian government. I've offered to, and I may yet, make a trip to Washington. I want to be respectful of the mid-terms there, so I don't want to interfere there, but I've told them that if necessary, I'm happy to go down there and meet with the lawmakers and decision-makers. I met also with Secretary Napolitano and Secretary LaHood about this issue and reiterated to them the importance of this to Canada.

They have also, in response, appreciated the effort we have all put in and the investment that's on the table for both sides of that bridge to make it work. They're very impressed and basically have said that Canada couldn't have done more or done a better job of presenting that.

What they're waiting for now on their side is for the Michigan legislature to approve this. Once that's done it can go on their priority list for highways and gateway infrastructure. Until the legislature down there does its work, they can't put it on their priority list, but they assured me that it's an absolute priority. That's almost a technicality. So my hope is that the Michigan Senate will deal with this quickly. And of course Canada stands ready to make that work on our side of the border.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you. Of course, the important step of the additional $550 million that was offered was well received in the region.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Both secretaries basically said that we can't do more than what we've already done. They can't ask for more from Canada; we've done our part.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Moving beyond the DRIC project, our economic action plan provides about $12 billion in infrastructure stimulus funding over two years. Transport Canada itself received direct allocations of, I believe, I would say, $163.9 million and $975 million for various crown corporations in the portfolio. What is your department doing to ensure that this significant amount of funding is spent in accordance with the provisions of the economic action plan?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I'll let Yaprak talk about some of those specific examples. I think it's important, when you talk about the economic action plan, for people to remember that infrastructure investment is only a small part of it. There's tax relief. There's the elimination of tariffs on imported merchandise. Last month the finance minister announced the elimination of tariffs on new ships, which the folks on the Great Lakes tell me will mean a billion dollars' worth of investment in new ships on the Great Lakes. There are EI provisions. And on and on it goes. So the economic action plan is much bigger than infrastructure, and the impact of the whole package is important to look at writ large.

On the specific investments, perhaps Yaprak....

[Yaprak Baltacioglu, Deputy Minister, Department of Transport]

On the specific investments, we got money for bridges. We got money for CATSA, in terms of capital investments. All of them are on track. As well, the department got money for the federal lab in Blainville that will do road tests for cars and trucks and so on. That is actually almost done and everything is on track.

Some of the money we got was beyond the two-year timeframe. For example, on the bridges, there have been ongoing safety improvements. They're all progressing on target. What we do is watch over the delivery to ensure that everything stays on track. No major problems and no major risks are encountered right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Malhi.

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to share my time with my colleague.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Last time the committee asked a question about civil aviation inspectors and the number that might be hired; that was a concern of the committee. I wanted to let you know that since Transport Canada last spoke to the committee on this issue, another 52 inspectors have been hired specifically for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Malhi.

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

How many projects received funding? How many promotional signs have been used for these projects? How much did they cost?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Forster is looking up the exact numbers for some of your questions.

Talking about signage, typically every infrastructure project at every level of government in the history of Canada has had signage attached to it. The previous government did it. The provincial governments do it, municipal governments.... They all do it, because people expect to know who's contributing to a public works project. So it's part of the contribution agreement that signage be put up. People should know; where you're spending this money should be transparent and open, so signage is part of the agreement. I don't have a dollar number and I don't know that it can be figured out. It's part of the expectation that a sign will go up, just as it does for every level of government, to show who is spending this money, who's responsible for it. The public deserves to know.

On the actual numbers, John.

[John Forster, Associate Deputy Minister, Infrastructure Canada]

Since the EAP was announced in Budget 2009 in January, we've approved 6,230 projects. The total value of that is $30.4 billion. That's under both stimulus programs, the two-year...plus a key part of the action plan was to accelerate the Building Canada fund and get it moving faster. So that includes both components. The federal contribution for those projects is $10.7 billion, so we've leveraged an additional $20 billion of investment from the provinces, municipalities, and other partners.

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

As the minister mentioned, the public should know about the projects, what the contributions are from the municipality, the provincial and federal governments. Also, the public has the right to ask the question, how much money is being spent on the signs?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Again, we make it part of the agreement. We just say, you've got a million-dollar road project, and as part of this agreement, put up a sign at the job site that tells people who's responsible, who's funding the project. That's part of the agreement, and we don't separate it, just as we don't separate how much is spent on engineering and flag people. We just say that part of the agreement is to put up a sign so that people know the project is.... We're not hiding from it. We built the project and we're not ashamed of it. People deserve to know where the money came from. It's part of the agreement, and it can't be separated cost-wise because it's part of the contribution agreement. I don't think there are any exceptions to that.

John, that's the way it is?

[John Forster]

Yes, that's correct, and that will be part of the cost they submit as part of their claim.

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Thank you.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Minister, you mentioned a keen awareness of changing trade and travel patterns, not only in Canada but internationally as well. A key sector of the Canadian economy is the tourism sector, which generates over $70 billion annually. International landings contribute over $15 billion annually to the Canadian GDP, the Canadian economy. Yet Canada's position is deteriorating rapidly, and we're moving from number eight in terms of international landings in 2002 to approximately number 15 now. We're losing five million passengers.

One of the reasons why we're losing that economic activity is in part because of high costs, such as the high costs of travel to Canada and the lack of competition among Canadian airways. But things like airport rents and high security fees are other things that are contributing to the high cost of becoming a traveller to Canada. What specific plans do you have to eliminate or at least significantly reduce those costs so we can at least regain our position in the top 10 destinations for international travellers?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you.

You may well want to talk to the tourism minister or the minister of small business as well. They may have something to add.

There are a couple of things I would say. As you mentioned in your preamble, part of it is cost. For example, on airport rental costs, the costs today are one half of what they were in 2005. We've cut them in half for airport rentals. That's a significant reduction from what it was in another era. It's considerably less.

The other thing, though, is that we're also suffering, in some ways, from a higher Canadian dollar. When we had a 70¢ dollar, it was a pretty cheap trip to jump on an airplane and go north. Now that we're closer to par, for people who have only so many disposable dollars, that becomes part of the decision-making process. It means that we have to work harder.

One of the things, for example, when I was in China.... They're delighted that Canada has approved destination status. We negotiated that with China for visitors coming from China. That's why several airlines spoke to me there about increasing travel to Canada, now that we have that status, in order to take advantage of that. I think that's going to be a real growth area for us.

This just points to the fact that in our gateway discussions, including the Atlantic gateway, we need to find ways to keep those tourism dollars coming in. That's a hugely important industry for Canada. We are taking steps, but I think it's going to take a full court press by all levels of government. That's why a gateway approach is usually best. It's never just one thing. It's going to be everything from tourist attractions to facilities, to ease to come in and out, visa determination, and approved destination status. All of these sorts of things are part and parcel of a good tourism industry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Monsieur Guimond.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

In another vein, Minister, you are certainly aware of the fact that ship piloting in the Great Lakes region currently exists for Canadian ships. There is an exclusion regarding the obligation to have pilots in the Great Lakes region. Contrary to popular belief, the Great Lakes do not start at the mouth of Lake Ontario, but start as far back as the Saint-Lambert locks.

As you know, last April, there was a leak traced back to a drilling platform in Louisiana. It is not necessarily related to piloting, but you know how concerned people are about environmental considerations, specifically people living along the St. Lawrence River and on the network linking the St. Lawrence to the Great Lakes. People are worried. We are fortunate in that we do have a maritime highway composed of the St. Lawrence, the locks and the Great Lakes. Nevertheless, it involves risks.

You have only recently taken up your position as minister, but your deputy ministers must certainly know that pressure is being brought to bear by shipbuilders on the issue of pilot qualifications. They would like self-regulation. In other words, they would decide whether their captains are qualified enough to operate in the locks and Great Lakes regions. It is as though you are asking Colonel Sanders to watch over the hen house. Allowing the industry to regulate itself would be bizarre. In any event, your government has already had the opportunity to object to similar practices. I could refer you to fifteen or so countries throughout the world, and namely the United States, for whom this is the United States Coast Guard's responsibility. I have here a poll conducted by Nanos Research. In 10 ridings, some of which are represented by your colleagues from the Conservative Party, the ridings of Burlington, Essex, Kingston and the Islands, Leeds—Grenville, Mississauga South, St. Catharines, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, Sarnia—Lambton, Windsor—Tecumseh and Welland, 89% of the 1,000 people polled by Nanos Research, a recognized firm, stated that the safe operation of commercial ships were of extreme importance to them.

Does the Conservative government intend to allow the industry to self-regulate?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you for that. That's an important question. I've not been the minister for that long, but certainly I've been made aware of that issue. There has been a review of the use of marine pilots on the Great Lakes and the necessity of that, because, as you say, the system is quite different than it is in some other ports, so that....

Is it still under review?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

You asked us to have a review of it and it will be done.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

So I understand that's a real concern, and we have to get an answer that satisfies people's concerns about the safety of that region. I don't dispute what you're saying. That's why we've asked for that review.

There were a couple of unfortunate accidents that thankfully, were not worse than.... They could have been much worse. We understand that, and that's why that review is taking place.

There are other issues that are also important on the safety side as well. For example, we're also reviewing the need and the necessity for voice recorders, the black boxes on both ferries and on larger ships, to make sure that not only are they operated in a safe way, but that if there is an incident of some sort, we have improved and increased data in order to figure out what went wrong to prevent it from happening again.

So I think we understand that safety levels do need to be increased, and we're reviewing things in several different categories to make that happen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Merci.

Ms. Brown, to finish up. We have about two and a half minutes.